No. This is not a “clash of civilizations”. Mohammedanism never had a civilization to begin with. This is the final jihad of the barbarians against civilization.

From this interview, one could get the idea that Wafa Sultan believes that Islam can, somehow, be reformed. I reject that. Islam has no redeeming features.  We need to throw Islam in the dustbin of history.

Anyhow, here is the brave , Dr. Wafa Sultan who was in Amsterdam this week to provide expert testimony in the Dutch establishments inquisition/show trial  of Geert Wilders, leader of the PVV (Freedom Party) and courageous critic of Islam:

Atlas Shrugs: Wafa Sultan’s Powerful Testimony in the Heresy Trial of Geert Wilders

Junk Scientist Al Gore Still Beating Dead Horse

Gore promises the Warmist Inquisition for denialists

Andrew Bolt:

Now in the New York Times he reveals just how religious is his mission, and just how theocratic would be any government he and his global warming followers controlled:

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

He will use the law to redeem your soul. To which the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witchhunters would have said: “Amen.”  Read it here>>

Here’s the money quote from the NYT:

Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the founder of the Alliance for Climate Protection and the author of “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” As a businessman, he is an investor in alternative energy companies.

Gore is panicking, because he knows that as the world wakes up to the fact that the glaciers and ice caps are not melting, his rivers of gold are going to dry up.

“From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.”

Brrrrrrrrr… goosebumps

The totally derailed Lizard buys it:

I agree with almost everything Al Gore writes in his New York Times op-ed today, but we all know that people who despise Gore (and there are more than a few on the right) are going to reject it out of hand.

Newsflash from ZIP: Obama sock-puppet OUT! Conservative wins Kennedy throne in Mass…

From today we’ll cover  the inquisition against Geert Wilders on Moe’s Jihad News.

The Trial of Geert Wilders: A Symposium

Has Wilders broken the law?

Geert Wilders’ inflammatory anti-Muslim statements are well known. Are they illegal?

By Folkert Jensma

Rumour has it that Geert Wilders, the leader of the populist PVV party, hopes to call Mohamed B., the man who killed Theo van Gogh, as a witness in his up-coming trialm which starts this Wednesday. Probably to establish the connection between the Koran and violence that Wilders assumes. The prosecution, however, will focus on the Dutch criminal code, particularly the two articles the politician is alleged to have violated: 137 c and d. Wilders is charged with slandering a group and sowing hate, and discrimination on the basis of race or religion. He has targeted muslims on the basis of their religion, the prosecution will argue, and non-western migrants or Moroccans on the basis of their race. The trial is expected to last months.  More from Handelsblad>>

Does Wilder’s accuser Gerard Spong call for Islamic law Holland?

The man bringing the case against Geert Wilders is left-wing lawyer Gerard Spong. In 2009 he caused controversy when he took part in a Dutch television show featuring a mock-trial where he convinced a TV jury that Bin Laden’s connection to Sept 11 was a product of “Western propaganda”, that there was insufficient evidence to prove Bin Laden was the real leader of al-Qaeda – in the end the TV jury ruled that Bin Laden was a “terrorist who has misused Islam.” [+]

With this mindset he and fellow students at the university where he works brings Wilders to trial from insulting Islam.

The following is what Radio Netherlands has been able together on Spong’s views. More from Islamization Watch:  Gerard Spong

* Of course they will. Because the jihad is permanent and relentless. But the Netherlands has now become a runaway train, where dhimmified, pandering politicians wankers prostrate themselves before their Islamic masters:

Geert Wilders interviewed about his looming prosecution. “Wilders feels persecuted in ‘political process,’” by Herman Staal for NRC Handelsblad, January 23:

Geert Wilders was “completely surprised” when he heard on Wednesday that the appeals court of Amsterdam ruled he shall be prosecuted for hate speech and inciting discrimination. Last year the public prosecutor had decided not to try the controversial Dutch member of parliament for his remarks about Islam. In an interview with NRC Handelsblad Wilders says he is “shaken, but also very angry and ready to fight.“

* Wilders: His prosecution “puts hundreds of thousands of Dutchmen on trial for opposing Islam’s violent messages”

* Jordan seeking international arrest warrant against Wilders

“The public prosecutor agreed with me, that I can say what I said. The attorney general at the appeals court has argued the same. I never thought that things would turn out this way,” Wilders says. Because of the appeals court ruling, the public prosecutor is forced to prosecute Wilders for statements such as “ban the Koran” and “the core of the problem is fascist Islam”, statements Wilders has made in the media and his own film Fitna.

In its detailed order the appeals court says that your statements are a punishable offence. What do you think of the decision?

“I have studied the ruling in depth, and have come to the conclusion that it is a politically motivated verdict. Normally, in these kind of appeals cases, a court rules on subsequent steps and includes an explanation [of its legal logic]. But here the appeals court is entirely focused on the content of the case. Therefore I can no longer get a fair trial. Should I stand before the lower court judge, there will already be a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on his desk. And if I go for an appeal, I end up in the same court. The immediate colleagues of the judges who have already sentenced me, will then be in a position to rule. That is unbelievable. The Wall Street Journal editorial is right. The appeals court is introducing Saudi Arabian legal standards to the Netherlands.”

But wasn’t there a proper procedure, where you and your lawyer were able to stand up in your defence?

“That is not the case. I have given a statement, but the appeals court has not asked me a single question. I have not been allowed to call any witnesses or experts. This was no normal appeals procedure – this was a political process. They have given a verdict that is content-driven.. I have already been convicted. This is banana justice.”

Wilders feels not only that the appeals court’s ruling is a political attack against him, but he says the pending change in Dutch anti-discrimination law is also aimed specifically at his populist PVV (Party for Freedom). Justice minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin (Christian Democrats) wants to do away with the legal ban on blasphemy, but at the same time change anti-discrimination act so that insulting a religion de facto means insulting the group that adheres to it.

“This is simply an anti-PVV proposition. A majority of parliament is likely to be opposed to it. But with this ruling Hirsch Ballin doesn’t even need change the law anymore. Thanks to the appeals court, the jurisprudence has simply sailed into becoming law.”

You have compared the Quran to Mein Kampf, and called Islam a fascist ideology. Why do you find that these remarks fit within the confines of the law?

“I am not the only one who thinks so. The public prosecutor also agrees, and many professors. Churchill said the same thing.”

“I view Islam not as a religion, but as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology – equal to communism and fascism. Aren’t I allowed to say so? If I say that about communism, there would not be a problem. I have never talked about people, I’ve always made it about ideology.”

You’ve referred to the ‘Muslim settlers.’ Those are people, aren’t they?

“That was not about all Muslims. That was referring to the problems in Gouda [where Moroccan youth caused problems that drew nationwide attention last October]. It was just about those Muslim settlers who spoil everything.”

But couldn’t that make all Muslims feel offended?

“You would be a great appeals court clerk. I am a democrat to the bone. I am allowed to say what I want.”

Where do you draw the line?

“At calling for violence. Also, I will not say any base things about entire population groups. The government makes the distinction between western and non-western immigrants. I push it a bit further. But these things need to be thrashed out in the political arena, not in court.”

Some critics say all this seems to suit you. You can exploit your role as victim at the hands of the political elite.

“That is a nasty insinuation. I do not want to be before a judge. I do not want to be prosecuted. I want to do my job in parliament. Hundreds of thousands of people have elected me to say what I say. I would need to be condemned if I did not speak my mind. The PVV is doing well. If elections were held today, polls indicate we would get 17 seats [in the 150 seat parliament], our highest mark in two years. The last thing I need is a lawsuit.”

The world seems to be infused with new hope from the election of Obama. Isn’t your whole approach and tone really ‘very 2008′?

“You mean passe? It’s not about the tone, it’s about the message. The problems with Islam will only increase. A bit of ‘flower power’ is fine, but that doesn’t suit this isue [sic]. Our proposals are vital.”